The High Court · 2025

. . Petitioners/Respondent Nos' 9 to 'l 3/Defendants 1 to 12 '9 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstarlces stated in the affidavit filed in suocort of the petition, the High court may be pl:ased to stay uttf,,tn",proceedingsinlANo.414of2024inlANo,95of2018in]SNo.114of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge at Hanamkonda3 lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Between

1. Sadiram Sadanaclam, S/o Late Durgaiah, Aged 58 years, 2. Sadiram l\rlahend'a, D/o Late Durgaiah, Aged 43 years, 3. Sadiram Dayanadam, S/o Late Durgaiah, Aged 49 years, 4. Sadiram Sampath, S/o Late Durgaiah, Aged 45 years, 5. Sadiram Devendta, S/o Late Durgaiah, Aged 40 years, 6. Sadiram Narenc'ra Kumari, D/o Late Durgaiah, Aged 36 years, Atl are R/o H. Nc 3-15-209, Pedddamagadda, Hanamkonda District 506007 . . Petitioners/respondent Nos. 2 to 7/Defenda nt Nos' 3 to I AND

1. Perla Komuraiah (Dted per LRs.),. 2. Perla Kumara Swamy, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged 52 years, Occ. Business, 3. Perla Cheralu, S/o. Komuriah, Aged 49 years, Occ. Business. 4. Perla Surya Racr, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged 46 years, Occ. Private l:mployee,

5. Perla Ketamma. Wto. Jayapal, Aged 43 years, Occ_ private Employee. 6. Perla Shankar, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged 39 years, occ. private Employee, 7. Perla Soundarya, D/o. Komuraiah, Aged 34 years, Occ. Household, 8. Perla Suryamma, Wo Komuraiah, Aged 69 years, Occ. Household, All are R/o H.No.3-.15-.1 11, peddammagadda, Hanamkonda _ 506007 ... Respondents/petitioners/ plaintiffs

9. Sadiram Mariyamma, (died as per LRs) '10. Bollam Ananda Rao, (Died LRs), 1 1. Nishanam yamini Shobha.Vanj, Wo Gururaj, R/o H. No. 3_15-127, pedhammagadda, Hanamkondi oiitri.t, "'-,, "

12.Bollam Komala, Wo late Ananda Rao, 13. Bollam Nanda Kishore, S/o late Ananda Rao, 14. Bollam Deepak Kiran, S/o late Ananda Rao, Respondents 1O to 12 are Rto H. No. 3_15-j30, peddammagadda, Hanamkonda District 500601 (Respondents Nos. .10 lo 1 4are not necessary parties to the petition) ...Respondent Nos. 10 to 14lDefendant Nos. 1,g to 12 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the gffifavlt fited in supporl qrll"^f:,1,1"i,, ir,Liigt court may be pteased ro vacate the interim orders dated 22-03-2024 passed blj tnis Hon,nte court in rA No. 1of 2024inCRpNo. 1O1Oof 2024 '------' lA NO: 6 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in "l jl" f"_ilt,fi, ih! Uigr, Court may be pteased to the affidavit fited in support, extend the rnterim orders dated 22-05-2o2qior afuliher period of 6 weeks. Counsel for the petitioners : Sri T. Damodar Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Bommineni Vivekananda The Court made the following: ORDER 'r"'t \?.' ./ - ._ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISIIETTY CIVIT REVISION PETITION No.1010 OF 2024 ORDER: The order dated 11.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.4l4 ol 2024 in I.A.No.95 of 2018 in O.S.No. 114 of 2022 on the file of thc Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda, is under challenge in thir' Revision Petition.

2. Heard Sri 'l.Darnodar, leamed counsel for petiti lners and Sri Bommineni Vir ekananda, learned counsel for the rcspondc lts.

3. The petitiont:rs herein are the plaintift's and the respond -nts herein are the defendants in the suit before the tlial Cour1. For ct nvenience, hereinafter the parlies are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. By the imprgned order, the application in I.A.No.414 o'2024 filed under Section 5 ,,r i the t-imitation Act seeking to condone tlre delay of 2038 days in filing an application to restore l.A.No.95 o1 2018 was allowed by the trial Courl subject to payment of costs of Rs.2.000/- by defendant Nos.2 to 8 to plaintiffs and Rs. 1,000/- to def-encant Nos.l0 to 12.

5. Brief facts cf the case relevant for adjudication of the p:esent Civil Revision Petition are that plaintiffs filed the suit lor declara,ion of title 2 cRP N. t 0l0 LNA. J "f2027 and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property; that on 04.10.2017, P.W-l was examined and on

24.10.2017, the matter was coming up for cross-examination of P.W-l, but as defendant No.2 to 9 were not present till the rising of the Court on that day i.e., till 4.30 pm., the trial Courl obierved that the said defendants waived their right to cross-examine P.W- 1 . Later, the defendants filed I.A.No.95 of 2018 to recall P.W-1 for cross-examination, but, the said application was dismissed for default on 28.06.2018. The defendants filed an application to restore I.A,No.95 of 2018 along with an application in LA.No.4l4 ol 2024 seeking to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. The said application filed to condone the delay was allowed subject to payment of costs, as stated supra.

6. In the affidavit filed in suppoft of application in I.A.No.414 of 2024, defendant No.3 averred that due to Covid-l9 pandemic situation and further, as he was ill and underwent surgery, he was unable to contact his Advocate and instruct hirn to conduct the case and as such, the delay occurred, which is neither willful nor intentional. He further averted that if the defendants were not allowed to cross-examine P.W-1, they would be put to irreparable loss and great hardship.

7. The plaintiffs filed counter opposing the said application and contended that the averment of defendant No.3 that he is unwell is false .-.'..,,,;.-i--*i--ne*-,,,* !.i*,:*'l. ...-, 3 LNA, J CRP ,\ r.t. t 0l a of 2024 and. even otherwiser, there is no explanation as to why the other defendants have not taken any steps' It is further contended tl at even after Covid-19 pandii'nic period, delay of two years occurred' f< r which there is no sufficiertt explanation by the defendants and he'rce' the application is liable ro be dismissed' 8. The trial Cor-rrt, on due consideration of contentions of both the parties, allowed thr: application subject to payment of costs rs stated supra. Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed' g.Learnedcoutlselfortherevisionpetitionersiplaintiflsclntended that the applicatiort does not disclose any plausible rea;ons for condonation of dclay, and defendant No'3 except stating that he underwent surgery, rlid not file any medical ceftificate to that ( flect and at least did not giv': any details of the said surgery u2'' the name of surgery, the hospitat where he underwent operation' etc Lle further contendedthattherewasdelayofl8monthspriortoor'rtbreakcfCovid- 19 pandemic and delay of two years even after end of Covid-19 pandemic period, but the defendants did not give any sufficient relsons for condonationofthe:;aiddelay.HefurthersubmittedthatinthelLbsenceof proper explanation for the delay, the same cannot be conConed' In suppoftofthesairlsubmission,herelieduponthejudgment'rfHon'ble 4 LNA, J CRP.No.l0l0 of2024 Apex Court in p.K.Ramachandran Vs, Slate of Keralat.Leamed counsel contended that in the light of the said judgment, the impugned order passed by the triar court is grossly erroneous and is unsustainabre and prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order. 10' Per contra' learned counsel for the respontlents/praintiffs contended that taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the triar court has rightry observed that if the application is not a,owed, it amounts to preventing defendant Nos.3 to g from contesting the suit, which would cause loss and prejudice to them and therefore, the trial court has rightly allowed the application by the impugned order. which calls for no interference by this Court. 11' The short issue that fa,s for consideration in this Revision petition is whether the impugned order of the trial courr is justifiabre and legal in the face of the reasons offered by the defendants for condonation of delay.

12. This Court has thoroughly perused the entire record,, viz., the application in I.A.No.4l4 of 2024 filed by the defendants, the counter filed by the plaintiffs, etc., before the trial Courr. 13. In the affidavit filed in suppoft of application in LA.No.414 of 2024' defendant No'3 stated that due to covid-1g pandemic situation and further, as he underwent surgery, he was unabie to contact and ins truct his ' 1997 Lawsui(SC) 12oO - / 5 LNA, J CRt'.\ o .010 of2024 Advocate and as such, delay in filing an application to restore I"\'No'95 of 2018 occurred. Ex':ept the vague statement of defendant No ! that he under-went surgery, he failed to produce any Medical Certificat: to that effect and even did not state the details of the same, i.e., name of the surgery, tl-re hospita I rvhere he was operated and treated' the p eriod of treatment, etc. In thr: absence of any such details, the stand of de'fendants that due to ill-health of defendant No'3, the delay occurred crnnot be believed and does not inspire confidence in this Court Even o.herwise' there is no rvhispcr as to why the other defendants have not trken any stepsforrestoringl.,\.No.95of2018'Thisshowsthatthedet-endantsare not diligent and in l'act, negligent in prosecuting the suit' which 'rannot appreciated. |4'Furlher,intreapplication,thedefendantsStatedthatCovid-i9 pandemic situation is one of the reasons for delay' Bur, it is a.)t to note that outbreak of C,rvid-l9 pandemic in India was in Januarl'' 2020 and thus, even before tht: outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, delay of I 8 months i.e., one year six nronths occurred and fuilher, after end of Covid-l9 pandemic, all the itr:;titutions, etc., have resumed to theit'nonnal functions and the human lile was restored to its original phase and as rightly contended by the plaintiffs, the delay of two years occurred lor which I i I l i i 6 LNA, -) CRP No l0l n -rrol defendants did not give any prausibre reason. The defendants have failed to give any plausible or cogent reasons for condoning the aforesaid deray. 15' This court is arso conscious of the fact that substantial rights accrued to the plaintiffs cannot be negatived, more so, when there are clear latches and default on the paft of defendants. 16. In Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Tfficer2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The expression ,,sfficient cause,, should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substontial justice is clone, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona Jides cannot be imputed to the parly concernetl, whether or not sfficient cause has been furnished, can be decidecl on the . facts of a particular case and no straitjackel formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) I SCC 535 . AIR 2002 SC l00J antl Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Soo [(2002) 3 SCC t95 AtR 2002 SC ] 201 I ) It is a seuled legal propositton that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to exlend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result /lowing from a smtutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operalion." The statutory provision may couse hardship or inconvenience to a particulor party but the court has no choice but to enJbrce it giving full effect to the same. The 'zzor:1r+1 scc sr 7 LNA, J CltP \o 010 of2A24 legal marim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is har'l hut it i,s the tttw", stands attracted in such a situation' It has consislentlv been held that, " inconvenience is not" a decisiv: factor to be )t)nsidered 14)hile interpreting a statute ' It is also apposite to refer to the judgment of the llon'ble iiupreme

17. in Eshu Bhattachariee Vs. Managing Commiltee of Coufi Raghunathpur NaJor Academy and others3, wherein rvhile t similar issue as to condoration of delay fell for consideration, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has broadly culled out certain principles and that the Clauses relevant tc, the present case, i.e., Clauses-21 .9 and Z2'4 are reproduced as lt ereu n det':- ''2l.9The (onilLCt, behaviour and attitude ofa party relaling to its inaction or rrcgligence are relevant factors to be tttken into consicleration. h i.s .so as the fundamental principle is that the courls are reErired to weigh the scale of balance ofjustice in resp"ct of both pctrties an,l the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name o.f liLreral approach.

22.4 Tlrc rcrtusirtg tendency to perceive delay as a non-serto ls tnatler atd he't,:e, lackadaisical propensity can be exltibiled in a nonchalont menner requires to be curbed, of course, wilhin legal parcnnet z,'s. " i 8. In view of the above discussion and the legal po';ition, considered opinion of this Court in the absence of any plausible explanation offered by the defendants for condonation ofhuge inordinate ' lzor:; rz scc o+s t I l I 1 I i i I I 8 LNA, J CR?.No.lAl0ol2024 f... delay of 2038 days in firing the application to restore I.A.No.95 of 201g, the trial Court has not acted judiciously and emed in allowing the said application on payment of costs. 19' In the resurt, the civir Revision petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingll allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. A.V.S. P ASSISTANT REGI R SAD RAR //TRUE COPY// SEGTION OFFICER The Principal District Judge at Hanamkonda One CC to Sri T. Damodlr, Advocate tOpUCl ff: BB to SrrBommineni VivefananOa -nl'ro."tu IopUCI L To, 't. a 3 4 DL/PS + u x€ ST. rlS J !) 10 APR 2025 t DE SPATC SgO ( o a- * HIGH COURT OATED:2710212025 ORDER CRP.No.1010 o12024 ALLOWING THE C.R P. @q' q cS 7r